Shalinder Kaur JUDGMENT
Shalinder Kaur, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 21.10.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi(hereinafter "learned Trial Court")in CS No. 162/2016 titled 'Jagat Singh & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors.', whereby the Learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") seeking to review and recall order dated 04.03.2023.
2. Vide the order dated 04.03.2023, the SDM was directed to carry out the demarcation as per the order dated 18.07.2023 and the petitioners herein were directed to bear the costs of the said demarcation.
Factual Matrix
3. The petitioners herein are residing in the land forming part of Khasra No. 49/22/2 and No. 52/22/2 admeasuring 3 bighas and 10 biswas, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Karawal Nagar, New Delhi and has been in settled possession of the same for more than 40 years. It is stated that the respondents herein are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the said property by destroying the structure of the property where the petitioners are residing.
4. On 21.03.2016, the petitioners herein had moved an application seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction preventing the respondents from taking possession of the property of the petitioners under the garb of taking possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 65 min, which is the land of the Banthla drain, without proper demarcation. It is the contention of the petitioners that the land they are residing in does not fall under Khasra No. 65 but under Khasra No. 49/22/2 and No. 52/22/2. Vide the order dated 21.03.2016, the Learned Trial Court ordered the respondent no.1 to conduct demarcation proceedings before conducting the demolition drive.
5. Pursuant to the said order, demarcation proceedings were carried out and a demarcation report was filed along-with two site plans. The report and site plan were taken on record vide order dated 07.05.2016. Thereafter, the Learned Trial Court vide order dated 10.11.2016 dismissed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 filed by the petitioners. Owing to the dismissal, the petitioner challenged the said order before the Appellate Court.
6. On 18.07.2017, the Appellate Court held that the demarcation report filed by the respondents herein is vague and does not create any distinctions regarding the suit property. It was also held that the identification of the suit property which allegedly falls under Khasra No. 49/22/2 and No. 52/22/2 has not been carried out therefore a fresh demarcation be carried out in continuation of the order dated 21.03.2016 along-with the preparation of a specific and scaled site plan. The demarcation should also state which Khasra the suit property falls under. Accordingly, the order dated 10.11.2016 was set aside.
7. Vide order dated 25.08.2018, it was observed that a fresh demarcation report was filed on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter objections were filed by the petitioners and a reply to the said objections was filed by the respondents. On 24.09.2022, the concerned SDM appeared before the court and it was observed that the SDM had no objection to a fresh demarcation being carried out. The petitioners herein stated that an independent demarcating agency be appointed to carry out the same. The counsel for the petitioner also stated that they would file a list of authorized agen........